Wife killer gets 30 years

Strong statements from family, judge at sentencing

Oct. 13, 2012

Frank S. Bortle III / File photo

Written by

BRIDGETON — Relatives and friends of Vineland school teacher Sharon V. Bortle poured out bitter memories and tears over the murdered mother of two young children in testimony at the emotional sentencing of her estranged husband in Cumberland County Superior Court on Friday.

Frank Shanley Bortle III, who entered a guilty plea to a murder charge on Aug. 29, was sentenced to serve 30 years in state prison without parole on a single count of first-degree murder. He further was sentenced to five years of supervision upon release.

Bortle, 50, gets credit toward that term for already being in custody for 1,713 days. All other charges were dismissed.

The defendant drew a sharp rebuke from Judge David Krell during the victim impact statement portion of the hearing. Bortle persistently talked through the hearing to his attorney as the prosecutor, family and friends addressed the court, and spectators were increasingly roiled over his conduct.

Krell finally snapped away from listening to Monica Rhubart, the sister of the victim, to ask defense attorney Joseph O’Neill whether his client was unable to listen. Someone in the audience shouted, “Thank you, your honor.’

“Well, the reason he’s telling me things is because he disagrees in fact,” O’Neill said.

“He’ll have a chance to respond,” Krell interjected. “But he should have the courage to sit there and listen to what these people are saying.”

“Sorry,” O’Neill said.

The murder took place on Feb. 3, 2008, at the West Wheat Road home of Frank Bortle. The couple had separated almost five months earlier, with Sharon Bortle alleging a history of physical abuse and threats.

The 35-year-old teacher, who taught fourth grade at Marie D. Durand Elementary School, had driven to the house to collect their children after a weekend visit. Her sister, Rhubart, had meant to go with her but she traveled alone in the end.

Bortle, a hunter, was supposed to be without weapons under the terms of a recently started divorce action. Vineland police also had seized what they thought was his entire weapon collection.

(Page 2 of 3)

Bortle, however, had a 20-gauge shotgun. He shot his estranged wife in the neck, at close range, as she sat in her car. Their 9-year-old son Austin watched from outside the house. Her 4-year-old daughter, Sarah Rose, was in the back seat of the car.

Bortle then tried to kill himself, failing, but badly disfiguring his face. County Assistant Prosecutor Michael Ostrowski, in unusually long and pointed remarks, called that failed suicide the “ultimate admission of guilt.”

Bortle, 50, was headed to trial last month after more than four years in custody when he decided to accept a long-standing plea offer. The deal was a 30-year prison sentence, minus his time in custody, and a condition that he serve every year.

Opening the hearing, O’Neill told the court that “the public should know that while this was an evil act that occurred, this is not an evil man judging by the history of his life.”

“In that, he has never been convicted of any crime, has always held jobs, worked very hard to support his family,” the attorney continued. “And I think up until this time was regarded as a good father and a good husband.”

Ostrowski, in an often mocking tone, reminded the court that the victim was executed in front of her children by “this non-evil man.” The state also had intended to bring up at trial how the defendant had verbally abused his son, mocking him as not “big enough for him or tough enough for him.”

The prosecution, as did family and friends, reserved special contempt for a claim from the defense that Bortle pleaded guilty to save his children from the stress of a trial.

“Judge, the process saved the children,” Ostrowski said. “Loving family and friends saved the children. The state saved the children. Quite honestly judge, the state was making every effort it could not to put those children through it. It wasn’t the state — it was the defense who tried to file motion after motion to compel, to force, these children to go through psychological testing, to force them to take the stand before trial. The state had enough evidence to do so and present the case without the children.”

(Page 3 of 3)

Ostrowski added there was “no grand plea bargain.”

“The state’s position, as the court is well aware, has been: ‘Mr. Bortle, either you go to trial or you plead guilty to murder and you get 30, do 30,’” the prosecutor said. “There was no further negotiation from the state.”

Tara Todd, a friend of the victim since childhood, said she was sickened on hearing Bortle’s claim of concern for his children.

“I ask you: Did you have your children in mind when you punched their mother in the eye in front of them?” Todd said. “Did you have your children in mind when you the loaded the gun in front of them? Did you have your children in mind when you raised the gun and shot their mother in cold blood with both of them watching?”

Todd told Bortle she wished him a prison cell with mirrored walls, so he could look at his ruined face and remember.

Bortle’s statement to the court before sentencing further upset spectators.

“I know my apologies won’t be accepted,” Bortle said. “But I have to say I’m sorry to my children, Sharon’s mom and my pop, for I let them all down.

“And from knowing Sharon and everything, I know, truthfully, there’s not a person in here that can honestly say that they ever expected that type of action toward Sharon from me, including Sharon,” he added, drawing gasps from spectators.

“Please,” Krell cautioned the crowd.

“Including Sharon, or else she wouldn’t have dropped the children off to see me. Or she wouldn’t have came there herself. And if she was so fearful, she could have had Monica come with her as she said on the day. That truth will never come out. I’m sorry. That’s all this fool has to say.”

The court, because of the plea agreement, had no leeway in sentencing Bortle. Krell, however, took pains to place on the record the worst details of the crime as well as his opinion that the defendant merited a life sentence. The judge also said he “strongly” considered rejecting the agreement.

“The defendant did not cooperate with law enforcement,” Krell said. “I agree with the prosecutor. The fact that the defendant pled guilty — he pled guilty on the eve of trial. He pled guilty, not for the children. He had no defense to his outrageous actions. He pled guilty not for the children but so that he might one day walk free.”

You will automatically receive the TheDailyJournal.com Top 5 daily email newsletter. If you don't want to receive this newsletter, you can change your newsletter selections in your account preferences.